Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
To Speak or Not to Speak: Can Pre-Miranda Silence be Used as Substantive Evidence of Guilt
By Christopher Macchiaroli
On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Miranda v. Arizona.1 Like a tidal wave, Miranda changed the manner in which custodial interrogations were to take place in America. As a result of Miranda, any suspect taken into custody and subject to interrogation was required to receive warnings of his or her constitutional rights.2 These warnings — now prominently known as “Miranda warnings” — were considered necessary in order to remedy the improper conduct of law enforcement officers during custodial interrogations. As described in police training manuals, such conduct was bent on creating an atmosphere suggesting “the invincibility of the forces of the law,”3 where interrogations would last for “several hours[,] pausing only for the subject’s necessities in order to avoid a charge of duress.”4 To highlight isolation and unfamiliar surroundings, manuals instructed law enforcement officers “to display an air of confidence in the suspect’s guilt,” and to maintain an ap
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.